Easter Monday 2009: a fateful anniversary

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that does kind of go against the IRA's claims to be waging a war as well. From what I could see, a lot of Irish people openly supported that one.

I think you,ll find that from 1923 the Irish free state,Eire(Ireland) and then the republic of Ireland never supported the IRA.

Fratton Fred

jonsnow wrote: »

I think you,ll find that from 1923 the Irish free state,Eire(Ireland) and then the republic of Ireland never supported the IRA.

then why is there a statue of Sean Russell in Glasnevin?

Bogger77

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then why is there a statue of Sean Russell in Glasnevin?

What Jonsnow meant, I think, is the Provional IRA of the 1970's onwards, or maybe even the Official IRA of the 1950's border campaign.

The vast majority of the Irish nation, both official Ireland (the State) or private citizens never supported either of the armed factions or militias styling themselves IRA or Óglaigh na hÉireann, since 1930's, when the remnants of the IRA of the war of Indepenance and civil war joined the Dail.

Of course, the vast majorit of the nation support the official Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish Defence Forces).

As for the raising of statue in Fairview, was it placed there by the Irish State, Nope, it was provided and is maintained by an organization dedicated to remembering dead republicans of the non politically minded. The Republician fallen, if you like.

From your name and sig, I'm guessing you're UK based, do you not find it strange that a statue to bomber harris is placed outside of outside of the raf chapel in the heart of London? A man whose record of death to civilians, and blanket destruction of towns and cities is second only to hitler and stalin in the histry of WW2.
Quote from his wiki entry ""I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier". In his memoirs he writes "In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method"."

Fratton Fred

Bogger77 wrote: »

From your name and sig, I'm guessing you're UK based, do you not find it strange that a statue to bomber harris is placed outside of outside of the raf chapel in the heart of London? A man whose record of death to civilians, and blanket destruction of towns and cities is second only to hitler and stalin in the histry of WW2.
Quote from his wiki entry ""I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier". In his memoirs he writes "In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method"."

I don't think Britains aversion to war has ever been called into question has it?

I don't personally agree with having a bomber Harris statue there, i think there are a lot of people more worthy.

Bogger77

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think Britains aversion to war has ever been called into question has it?

I don't personally agree with having a bomber Harris statue there, i think there are a lot of people more worthy.

Barnes-Wallace, RJ Mitchell (spitfire), Douglas Bader (RAF fighter pilot) or Robert Watson-Watts (radar) or Tommy Flowers (google him) would be much more worthy for recognition. imho.

My point was, because Russell tried to get German involvment in anti-British action during WW2, and appears to your eyes to be unworthy of recognition yet has a (oft vandalized) statue in Dublin, this type of issue occurs every where.
Even Estonia recently, had the incident with the Soviet memorial, to Estonian's it was symbol of Russian/Soviet occupation and oppression, to the russians, it honored the memory of the liberators of the baltic state from Nazi occupation.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then why is there a statue of Sean Russell in Glasnevin?

Sean russell was held prisoner by the free state until 1925 when he escaped.He returned to ireland in 1929 covertly and was an IRA organiser(an illegal organisation at the time in the free state).He was rearrested in 1932 by the gardai-but won his appeal in court.He became Chief of staff of the IRA in 1939 and in 1940 he went to berlin to get aid for the IRA from the nazi regime.He attempted to land covertly by submarine and died enroute.If he had landed the Irish intelligence service and gardai had orders to arrest him on sight.The National Graves Commision a private republican organisation (not a state one) erected the monument in 1951.
If you think the Irish STATE gave sanction to sean russells actions after 1923 you are wrong.It continously arrested,prosecuted and kept him under surveillance.

There are numerous memorials erected throughout Ireland which commerate IRA volunteers killed after 1923 by the Irish State-in executions,prison breaks,hunger strikes etc.I used to pass by one erected in the grounds of UCC which lambasted the "free state traitors" which had killed two prisoners trying to escape from what had been a prison in the 1930s.Republican organisations erect memorials in the north as well- does that give them official state (british) sanction!!.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think Britains aversion to war has ever been called into question has it?

What are you trying to say here that Britain traditionally has had an aversion to war!!!.Lets compare the Irish state v. the British State on that count since the Irish Free State was established in 1923.

Irish State/Eire/Republic of Ireland-Ireland has not been involved in any wars/counter-insurgency campaigns since 1923 -despite all the claptrap we hear about the "fighting Irish".

Great Britain-(this is an unscientific off the top of my head list)
1919-counter-insurgency operations in India ie.Amristar Massacre
1920s-counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.
1939-45-World War 2
1941-Anglo-Iraqi war
1940s-counter-insurgency operations in Palestine
1940s-1960 Malayan Emergency
1950s-Suez Crisis
1950s-counter-insurgency operations in Oman and Jordan
1950s-Korean War
1960s-The Indonesian Confrontation
1960s-counter-insurgency operations in Kuwait
1960s-counter-insurgency operations in Cyprus
1960s-counter-insurgency operations in Aden and Oman
1969-2007-counter-insurgency operations in Northern Ireland
1970s-counter-insurgency operations in Oman
1980s-Falklands War
1990s-Iraq War 1
1991-2003-Operation Southern Watch-Iraq
1999-Kosovo War
2001-Afghanistan war
2003-Iraq War 2

I think that we can all agree that some of Great Britains wars were worth fighting and some weren,t -but the british state has never had an aversion to war as a foreign policy tool.The British army is never more than a few years away from its next conflict.

While there are not many things that the Irish State has done of which I am immensely proud.I am proud that since Ireland has achieved its independence it has remained a neutral country and today is one of only a handful left.It is one policy that enjoys almost total support in Ireland from virtually every quarter.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't personally agree with having a bomber Harris statue there, i think there are a lot of people more worthy.

How do you feel about the statue of Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament!!Whos actions do you think lead to the deaths of more of his fellow human beings Russell or Cromwell!!.Who do you consider the more evil man!!!

Fratton Fred

Sorry for Britains actions, but I don't see what the relevance is. The OP clealry demonstrated the Irish involvement in British actions. The second post lambasted the Mayo peace park. How can monuments to IRA activists be OK and the Mayo peace park not be? Irrespective of who is stanind outside any British government buildings.

Ireland is not neutral. It is a myth and not much mose than an excuse to underfund the military. There are Irish soldiers in Afghanistan serving under NATO command.

Shutuplaura

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry for Britains actions, but I don't see what the relevance is. The OP clealry demonstrated the Irish involvement in British actions. The second post lambasted the Mayo peace park. How can monuments to IRA activists be OK and the Mayo peace park not be? Irrespective of who is stanind outside any British government buildings.

Ireland is not neutral. It is a myth and not much mose than an excuse to underfund the military. There are Irish soldiers in Afghanistan serving under NATO command.

Hi Fred. I don't think you should have to apologise for Britains actions by thew way. As for Irish neutrality, well, its not as neutral as I for one would like to see it. It is in a very real sense unassociated with most if not all of the conflict Britain found itself in since 1922. Irish men representing the Irish people were not policing the empire after that date. If they were involved it was as a soldier of the Crown. Perhaps our stance was immoral during WW2 (I don't think it was) but this was one occasion.

Regards the points the op was making though. He had 4 in all.

One of the OP's points was the below. .

Snickers Man wrote: »

4) If you accept the trite pro-Empire arguments of a previous generation, you will be called upon to believe the updated contemporary version. The war against terror today is no different to the Great War for Civilisation (go on,
check the campaign medals for WWI if you don't believe me) of 1914-1918.

The Mayo peace Park to me involves accepting what the OP called 'the trite pro-empire arguments of a previuos generation'. It does this specifically by implying that the soldiers from Mayo killed in Imperial armies since 1914 - ie Britain and America, died in the cause of peace and it does this by placing them on a par with Irish soldiers who were killed in peace-keeping operations.

Now no doubt some if not all of these mayo-men believed that they were fighting for peace. Some of the wars in which they gave their lives involved Britain being on the right side against a demonstratively evil enemy. However, this isn't the case for the majority, especially those kileld in World War 1. Its a sham suggesting their deaths verifably brought the world any closer to universal harmony.

The OP brought attention to Ielands involvement in the empire, a very sordid act. Not I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning this again. Its something all educated Irish people are aware of. How this legacy should be handled is debateable. It is however very questionable to suggest they were peacemakers or humanitarians, given the exploitative nature of any empire. Its also very questionable to want to celebrate it, especially out of the very contex in which its most relevant, the effect their actions had on the parts of the world they served.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What i am getting at, is that there should be some sort of memorial to war, to demonstrate that it is nasty and people die. I heard a quote the other day i liked "War is ****, anyone who thinks otherwise is a bloody fool". that came from a serving officer. I don't see any better way of demonstrating that than displaying the names of those that died.

Agreed, but its all a question of how its done. This is implying that their death was a sacrifice for peace, when the op has shown that the Irish doing the empire's bidding and killed in Britains wars were not killing and dying for peace.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Where do you draw the line on who to remember? those that died under the Irish flag on UN missions? it is ok becuase that was UN sanctioned. What then, about Korea. That was UN sanctioned as was Bosnia. What about Irish soldiers serving in the British army in Afghanistan, that is UN sanctioned and supported by Ireland. should those guys be remembered even though they died fighting in a different army? it is, after all, a cause supported by Ireland.


If you pick and choose, who decides? who has the right to retrospectively say "that war was bad, that one was good"?

Everyone, especially those in any way effected.

If you are deciding its impossible to question retrospectively the morality of a war, isn't it also fair to say its impossible to question another states decision not to get involved in a war? You have been vocal in condemning Irish neutrality. How can you retroactively say that this neutreality was wrong when you don't seem to accept other people can judge the morality of these very wars.

YOur reasoning presumably is that the judgement is based on hindsight - a soldier in 1914 couldn't know that the great war wouls spawn a sequal. Ditto Irish neutrality. Dev didn't know about the death camps.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Here's an example, what about Bobby Sands? he was a member of a terrorist organisation that killed and maimed innocent people. Should he have a memorial? Should he be remembered the way he is, after all, most people in Ireland did not support the IRA's war, didn't they?

People who want to erect a memorial to Bobby Sands want to push an agenda. As do people who want to put up memorials to Irish members of the British or American Armies.

Now as for Sean Russell. I don't thnk its fair to lump him in with the horros of the holocaust. He was not a nazi. However, you are in the main correct. I believe that he shouldn't have a memorial, being as he is such a controversial character, and that his actions are so open to misinterpretation. However, two wrongs do not make a right and Sean Russell wasn't in any way related to the OP's point.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry for Britains actions, but I don't see what the relevance is.

You stated that "I don't think Britains aversion to war has ever been called into question has it?".Many people have called it into question including me.I then provided my reasoning for calling it into question.If you raise a point that other people disagree with on an internet forum it is to be expected that they might address it.
You don,t have to apologise for the British States actions and no-one on this thread ever asked you to.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The OP clealry demonstrated the Irish involvement in British actions.

I think its an indisputable fact that Irish soldiers participated in policing the British empire.But for example-destitute and starving Irishmen who signed up during the famine were hardly eager participants in the British Empire.They just did what they had to survive and many of them would have continued to hold nationalist sentiments even while wearing the British uniform.
I think you,ll also find that in India the majority of British troops were actually Indian.I,m sure that most of them harboured there own nationalist sentiments and that most of them didn,t take any particular pleasure in enforcing the Kings/queens writ.
In Australia the British used aborigine trackers and soldiers to crush aborigine resistance.In Canada and the United States they used native americans troops to crush the indigenous tribes resistance.Desperate people sometimes don,t have a whole lot of choice except to throw in their lot with a conqueror.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The second post lambasted the Mayo peace park. How can monuments to IRA activists be OK and the Mayo peace park not be? Irrespective of who is stanind outside any British government buildings.

How can the British state erecting a statue of a genocidial religous fundamentalist outside the mother of all parliaments be OK- but private republican organisations erecting monuments to low level IRA activists not be.
I have no problem with the aspects of the Mayo Peace Park that deal with the men who died in Irish uniform on UN peacekeeping missions.If the US and the UK want to honour Irishmen who died on missions in their armies(which I,m sure they do-poppy day and the Vietnam wall) I,ve no problem with that either.
I don,t think that I should blindly have to honour men who died in wars that I disgree with just because they were Irish and thought they were doing the right thing.If an Mayoman dies tomorrow as a British soldier in Iraq(a war that I and most Irish people believe is illegal) does his name go up on the wall!!. What about a mayo mercenary killed working for Blackwater-did he die "in the cause of world peace!!!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral. It is a myth and not much mose than an excuse to underfund the military. There are Irish soldiers in Afghanistan serving under NATO command.

Ireland is neutral and has been since the foundation of the state.It is the official policy of the state under the triple lock mechanism and the constitution which states under Article 28.3.1. that "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dail Eireann".
Sure our goverment has sneakily sent seven intelligence officers over to Afghanistan under the auspices of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in a non-combat role.But in most peoples estimation that falls a long way short of Ireland having renounced its neutrality policy.Austria,Finland and Sweden also have a handful of troops in Afghanistan under the E.A.P.C. and these countries are all considered neutral as well-Sweden since 1814.
Under your logic Ireland was also a belligerent in World War Two because Irish Intelligence officers travelled regulary to both the North and to London to brief the British army in areas of their expertise.

The Irish army is underfunded because the Irish people prefer to spend their taxes on other objectives.We don,t like to waste our money on playing soldiers.The only reason the defence forces are even as large as they are is that it was traditionally Irish governmentpolicy to have an Irish army twice the size of any concievable IRA force.Now that that threat has receded I for one would have no problem with downsizing the Defence Forces.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

. I heard a quote the other day i liked "War is ****, anyone who thinks otherwise is a bloody fool". that came from a serving officer.

Yeah well if that guy despises war so much he was a bloody fool to join an army.Especially if it was an army which is never more than a few years away from its next conflict.He should have joined one of the thousands of other professions which wouldn,t bring him face to face with the horrors of war.

mikemac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then why is there a statue of Sean Russell in Glasnevin?

I'd say you mean Fairview
Your question was answered anyway

McArmalite wrote: »

There is a large memorial park in Islandbridge Dublin to WW1. Dev and FF contributed to it. But ofcourse that wouldn't be enough for him, he'll have to come back with some silly, childish irrevelant reply regardless :rolleyes:

Absolutly beautiful park that I'd say most in Dublin have never been to.
Worth a look.

I'm not sure why only one fountain is working at the moment but that's a minor issue.
Go for a stroll there some Sunday morning.
You can then take the path by the Liffey to Chapelizod if you're stuck for a bus

More pics her:
http://irelandposters.com/dublin/national_war_memorial.html

Fratton Fred

So Ireland won't go to war without the say so of the government? How exactly does that make Ireland neutral??

I can't recall me ever slating Irish neutrality and I have said many times that WWII was played just right by Dev. Ireland were neutral but with a decided bias towards the allies. I do get hacked off by this myth that Ireland is somehow all righteuos in it's neutrality, it is a myth and nothing more than an excuse to not spend money on its military. A neutral country should be at least capable of defending itself.

My comment about Britains aversion to war was meant to be ironic, I accept I failed in that. It is worth mentioning though that despite what people like to think, a lot of Britain's wars were not always evil and a great many of their opponents were as bad if not worse than Britain.

jonsnow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So Ireland won't go to war without the say so of the government? How exactly does that make Ireland neutral??

Dail Eireann has never declared war on anyone so the Irish state has remained neutral in all the wars that have occured since 1923.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't recall me ever slating Irish neutrality and I have said many times that WWII was played just right by Dev. Ireland were neutral but with a decided bias towards the allies.

I thought Irish neutrality was a myth!!!!.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do get hacked off by this myth that Ireland is somehow all righteuos in it's neutrality, it is a myth and nothing more than an excuse to not spend money on its military. A neutral country should be at least capable of defending itself.

Fine we might be a little bit smug and hypocritical in our neutrality policy.We basically depend on NATO for our security and have been very lucky over the years.But wouldn,t it be a much better world if every country followed our policy!.
The reality is that most of Ireland is a flat plain ie.not mountainous and easily defended and we have a small population.We will never be able to defend ourselves properly from any powerful outside force.We really can only defend our Republic from internal threats.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My comment about Britains aversion to war was meant to be ironic, I accept I failed in that. It is worth mentioning though that despite what people like to think, a lot of Britain's wars were not always evil and a great many of their opponents were as bad if not worse than Britain.

Fair enough I actually wasn,t sure if you were being ironic or not and ultimately I thought you were being serious.
I stated a while back that "I think that we can all agree that some of Great Britains wars were worth fighting and some weren,t".I know they weren,t always evil and Great Britain distinguished itself in a number of conflicts-World War Two being the standout.